When did the monarchy in England lose power? (1 Viewer)

[todd s]

I am waiting for Prince William to take the throne (after he kicks his dad out) and then takes back control of the UK (by force if necessary) from parliment and the PM.

 

[JeremyErwin]

He's a columnist with the Guardian

 

[andrew markworthy]

Jonathan Freedland is a respectable journalist, and The Guardian is the most left-wing of the mainstream newspapers in the UK. Without taking any political stance, it's fair to say that it also has a reputation for being rather smug and 'holier than thou' and waxing lyrical about lofty ideals without much idea of the practicalities. Oh yes, and it used to be riddled with mis-prints (hence its nickname 'The Grauniad').

Republicans in the UK fall into two camps. One, such as Mr Freedland, present a rational view, generally fairly argued. The other is far more visceral, and republicanism is held alongside just about every other -ism.

Interestingly, the staunchest royalists in the UK tend to be in the working classes. Generally, the Royals have done themselves no favours with the middle classes (more and more of whom have a university education) by not trying harder intellectually. For example:

(1) practically any arts event attended by the Royals is at best middlebrow and often resoundingly tacky.
(2) none of the Royals ever does anything particularly 'intellectual' (compare with e.g. the Scandanavian monarchies). Prince Charles's attempts to say anything profound have nearly always been just plain embarrassing.
(3) a couple of the more notable recent marriages have been to immensely stupid people. Princess Diana, God rest her soul, meant well (at times) but was jaw-droppingly inane.

 

[JeremyErwin]

On the other hand, I'm not so sure that an intellectual is electable.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

We've had a few. Woodrow Wilson and Richard Nixon come to mind. Your own Chris Patten, currently Chancellor of Oxford, was previously chair of the Conservative Party and could have been PM with a majority.

 

[Holadem]

Mr Icke's claim covers a wide range of world leaders beyond the UK Royal family. With the recent news that US Senator Barak Obama and US Vice President Dick Cheney are related (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21340764/), Mr Icke may be onto a disturbing truth.

--
H

 

[JeremyErwin]

Wait, I'm an American. My parents, though, are expats, having lived for the past five years in Sunderland.

 

[andrew markworthy]

So much so, that if you follow the link you get a 404 Error. Someone clearly doesn't want us to know the truth ...

 

[Holadem]

Link fixed -- for now...

--
H

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

To close a loose end, I received and read Bringing Home the Revolution. It's quite a good read. Freedland makes many sensible points, although the book is definitely written for a British audience. For example, Yanks may be confused with references to the "public schools" (e.g. Eton et al.) which in the US would be called "private academy schools". Also the British concept of mayors of cities being sent down from the central government, rather than being elected by the locals, could be fleshed out to be more clear to US audiences.

Freedland's book is the closest in spirit to the book which I am writing of any existing books I've discovered to date. However, my means of carrying out the revolution in the UK is somewhat more daring and will also solve the problems the UK has with the EU. A modest proposal. And no, I'm not proposing to cook and eat Papist babies.

Andrew, I can't find a book called "The Royals" by Jeremy Paxman, but did find one called "On Royalty". www.amazon.com/gp/product/1586484915/ Is this the book you were intending to reference?

 

[andrew markworthy]

It's a bit more complicated than that! Local councillors (i.e. local politicians, generally allied to the major political parties) are voted for in local elections. The councillors then vote amongst themselves for who will become mayor. Almost inevitably it means someone from the ruling party. However, the job of mayor is in most towns and cities largely symbolic (a bit like the royals, really). The exception to this is some of our bigger cities (e.g. London, Sheffield), where the mayor often has a lot more power.

Very few public offices are directly voted for by the public in the UK. The idea of e.g. the local chief of police being elected would be greeted with horror in the UK. I don't think US television drama has helped in this regard. Every week there seems to be a case of a police chief refusing to do the right thing because it's election year and he wants to keep his post. I'm sure the reality is different from this, before anyone says anything. And before anyone asks, yes, inefficient and bad police chiefs are removed from office over here, but equally, they don't have to pander to public opinion.

And Dennis, in answer to the question, yes, that's the book. Either it's got a different title over here or (more likely) I got the title wrong. I lent the book to my mother and she was referring to it as 'The Royals' so it could be she got the name wrong and caused me to misremember it as well.

 

[Holadem]

That's because he is appointed by an elected official .

I have never heard of a police chief being elected.

--
H

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

But county sheriffs are elected over here.

Oh dear I have misunderstood UK politics once again. Freedland's discussion about the Lord Mayor of London made it appear that he was an appointee of the central government, as are the "regional" governors in England.



And then there are the distinction between the "historic" counties and modern counties.

This book was somewhat of a disappointment, in that Patten discusses the relationship of the UK with the US and the EU without really discussing the structural differences of the various governments.
Patten also put in far more autobiographical details than I had anticipated. This book was published under the title "Not Quite the Diplomat" in the UK.

I wish book publishers would quit the practice of having different editions and titles between the US and UK. It's difficult enough to research one another's governmental structures without having yet another roadblock in the way.

 

[John Mansor]

I know this isn't really part of the conversation but since you jumped so quickly. Sean Connery is British. Scotland is a Home Nation, a member of Great Britain. It is the British Monarchy not the English Monarchy.

 

[BrianB]

But he's still no Englishman.

 

[Holadem]

Context is everything:

Dennis said Connery is no Englishman is response to a post suggesting (in jest) that the Monarchy ended when Connery stopped playing Bond (implying that Connery was a subject of the Monarchy).

Dennis' response ("Sean Connery is a Scot: he ain't no Englishman.") implies that a Scot is not a subject of the Monarchy.

John merely sought to correct that mistake (a bizarre one 'cause Dennis certainly knows better) by pointing out that a Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, making it's citizens subjects of the Monarchy.

In other words: Connery == Englishman is irrelevant to the discussion so long as he is a subject of the Crown .

--
H

 

[BrianB]

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Actually, this is quite wrong.

Connery is a Scot.
Connery is not English.
Connery is British.

All three of these statements are literally true.

Sir Sean Connery had his knighthood delayed many years because of his agitation for increased autonomy for his native Scotland. See for example http://heritage.scotsman.com/topics....2&id=542102007 .

Calling Connery an "Englishman" would be similar to calling a proud Texan a "Yankee".

The original poster asked the question "when did the monarchy in England lose power?" The British monarchy traces its roots to the kings of Wessex who were not even kings of all England, much less Britain. Alfred the Great, greatest of the kings of Wessex, fought the Danes of eastern England. He prevailed by founding the Royal Navy and defeating the Danes at sea.



King John, who was forced to sign the Magna Carta, was king of England but not king of Britain. John ruled over England and a good portion of France.

Actually the term "Briton" originally refered to Roman citizens of the island of Britania, whose indigenous people were celts, picts, etc. Not to put too fine a point on it, but King Arthur, if he existed at all, wasn't "English" at all but rather an Italian!

The present UK didn't take its current form until after WWI, when Ireland went its own way but Ulster remained. Part of the problem with answering the original poster's question, or other similar questions, is that countries change over time. "Germany" and "Italy" didn't even exist as such until the late 1800's, although we may identify "Germans" and "Italians" as distinct ethnic groups dating back centuries. But even then a seemingly simple question such as "are Sicilians really Italians?" could foster debates taking up entire books.

 

[Holadem]

That's the point at issue here I think. No offense meant to the original poster, but anyone who would ask such a pithy question (and the OP has a history of such threads ) most likely meant UK, and not specifically England.

That is the only context in which the Sean Connery joke (and subsequent responses) make any sense.

--
H

 

[todd s]

I am the ignorant Yank who asked about when the Monarchy in England lost power. I should have said "in Britain".

In any case. I was curious as to when the Queen Elizabeth line of royals lost actual political power?